lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:50:43 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> Subject: Re: seccomp ptrace selftest failures with 4.4-stable [Was: Re: LTS testing with latest kselftests - some failures] On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org> wrote: >> On 06/22/2017 10:53 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org> wrote: >>>> Hi Kees, Andy, >>>> >>>> On 15 June 2017 at 23:26, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org> wrote: >>>>> 3. 'seccomp ptrace hole closure' patches got added in 4.7 [3] - >>>>> feature and test together. >>>>> - This one also seems like a security hole being closed, and the >>>>> 'feature' could be a candidate for stable backports, but Arnd tried >>>>> that, and it was quite non-trivial. So perhaps we'll need some help >>>>> from the subsystem developers here. >>>> >>>> Could you please help us sort this out? Our goal is to help Greg with >>>> testing stable kernels, and currently the seccomp tests fail due to >>>> missing feature (seccomp ptrace hole closure) getting tested via >>>> latest kselftest. >>>> >>>> If you feel the feature isn't a stable candidate, then could you >>>> please help make the test degrade gracefully in its absence? >>> >>> I don't really want to have that change be a backport -- it's quite >>> invasive across multiple architectures. >>> >>> I would say just add a kernel version check to the test. This is >>> probably not the only selftest that will need such things. :) >> >> Adding release checks to selftests is going to problematic for maintenance. >> Tests should fail gracefully if feature isn't supported in older kernels. >> >> Several tests do that now and please find a way to check for dependencies >> and feature availability and fail the test gracefully. If there is a test >> that can't do that for some reason, we can discuss it, but as a general >> rule, I don't want to see kselftest patches that check release. > > If a future kernel inadvertently loses the new feature and degrades to > the behavior of old kernels, that would be a serious bug and should be > caught. Right. I really think stable kernels should be tested with their own selftests. If some test is needed in a stable kernel it should be backported to that stable kernel. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists